On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 05:31:34PM +, Howard Chu wrote:
I would probably keep "libldap" as the canonical name.
++
We can completely drop the "libldap_r" name or just keep it as a
symlink for a while, removing it after a year or so.
I'd maybe make that "after a release or so" i.e. if
Michael Ströder wrote:
> On 3/18/19 5:15 PM, Howard Chu wrote:
>> I noticed that OpenSSL 1.1 now has an explicit dependency on Pthreads. Which
>> means that now
>> even our "non-threaded" libldap, when built with OpenSSL, must actually be
>> linked with the
>> threads library. In this age of
On 3/18/19 5:15 PM, Howard Chu wrote:
> I noticed that OpenSSL 1.1 now has an explicit dependency on Pthreads. Which
> means that now
> even our "non-threaded" libldap, when built with OpenSSL, must actually be
> linked with the
> threads library. In this age of multicore processors, is it
On 3/18/19 11:23 AM, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
--On Monday, March 18, 2019 5:15 PM + Howard Chu
wrote:
I noticed that OpenSSL 1.1 now has an explicit dependency on Pthreads.
Which means that now even our "non-threaded" libldap, when built with
OpenSSL, must actually be linked with
--On Monday, March 18, 2019 5:15 PM + Howard Chu wrote:
I noticed that OpenSSL 1.1 now has an explicit dependency on Pthreads.
Which means that now even our "non-threaded" libldap, when built with
OpenSSL, must actually be linked with the threads library. In this age of
multicore
Michael Ströder wrote:
> HI!
>
> Does anybody here think it's worth to give this a try?
>
> https://developers.google.com/season-of-docs/docs/
>
> Ciao, Michael.
>
Sure, why not? At least we can submit an application. Anyone have time to
mentor?
--
-- Howard Chu
CTO, Symas Corp.
I noticed that OpenSSL 1.1 now has an explicit dependency on Pthreads. Which
means that now
even our "non-threaded" libldap, when built with OpenSSL, must actually be
linked with the
threads library. In this age of multicore processors, is it really important to
have a single-threaded
LDAP
